this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
178 points (98.9% liked)
PC Gaming
13905 readers
1095 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think anyone using AI for this has good intentions. They are trying to increase their own "reputation" without putting in the work. If they are in the field they should know that someone has to review this. If they can't be bothered to do that then they know they are making someone else do this unpaid labor without having even checked it first. If they are not in the field then they think spending money on their own pet project is the best way to support instead of giving money directly to the team doing the actual work. If the team wanted to use that money on AI they could then do so themselves. It's a self interested thing either way.
Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn't allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it. Just narcissistic people who wish they were better than they are and wasting time and resources hoping to feel better about themselves and their contributions.
I can't rule out some might have "good intentions". But more importantly, their intentions don't really matter — it isn't like you or me are going to know them.
You're talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.